Proliferation's natural result...

[red_elk]

I heard about project of using impactor+warhead scheme, to detonate nuclear warhead at some depth inside asteroid. This would make explosion much more effective in terms of possibility to break asteroid to pieces, which would dramatically reduce its damage to Earth.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Yeah, you'd almost have to do that because nuclear detonations in space are fairly weak without an atmosphere to transmit a pressure wave, i.e. blast. Without burying it, you'd lose most of the energy of the blast out into space as radiation.

 

[red_elk]

There are numerous technical issues, of course, but the general idea is to use impactor to make deep enough crater and then somehow put warhead into it. Not sure how it can be done without Bruce Willis and Lev Andropov, but that's what I read.

 

[BenitoChavez]

I'm seriously disappointed that it took this long for anyone to reference Armageddon.

 

[Hakim]

But nukes are expensive, aren't they? Given Ukraine's economical situation it seems wise to scrap them.

Also, having nukes makes a country a "fair" target for an attack with nuclear weapons as well.

I agree, blasting it into little bits probably wouldn't make it better: you'd likely just spray the entire Earth with lots of little pieces of radioactive rock.

Blasting it into many small bits have one advantage: the total surface area exposed to the atmosphere will be much larger.

 

[Tahuti]

Also, having nukes makes a country a "fair" target for an attack with nuclear weapons as well.

Well, was Japan armed with a nuke?

 

[History_Buff]

There are numerous technical issues, of course, but the general idea is to use impactor to make deep enough crater and then somehow put warhead into it. Not sure how it can be done without Bruce Willis and Lev Andropov, but that's what I read.

Nah, you wouldn't do that, you'd just harden the warhead so it could penetrate on it's own. If becomes it's own impactor, and just smashes it's way in there.

 

[red_elk]

Nah, you wouldn't do that, you'd just harden the warhead so it could penetrate on it's own. If becomes it's own impactor, and just smashes it's way in there.

No, IIRC the difficulty with this approach is that impact speed will be too high (tens of km/s) for even hardened warhead to remain intact after collision. The explosion must be triggered before warhead hits the rock. Impactor and warhead must be separated, but probably be close enough for warhead not to miss the crater.

 

[Hakim]

Well, was Japan armed with a nuke?

That's anecdotal. Seriously, it was a bit special situation as there was no nuclear weapons before. Today, if one nuclear power knows it deals with another, a pre-emptive nuclear attack may seem more tempting and defensible ("we have proof they were about to launch their own nuclear weapons!"). And of course, if the target already launched one then the pity will be a lot smaller if it were counter attacked with nukes.

 

[ParkCungHee]

That's not evidence, just precedent. Though India and Pakistan have waged conventional war in the past while both of them had nukes. Also, chemical weapons were far less publicised as a potential choice. Another problem is that chemical weapons are more difficult to use without dealing friendly damage.

That's not really a problem in the scenario envisioned though.